![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
nairiporter.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics[Error: unknown template video]
This is a TED talk by Paul Tudor Jones II, a hedge fund manager who has earned a lot of popularity in the US, although he seldom gives interviews. Still, his arguments naturally resonate very clearly with the audience.
Basically, he is arguing that the obsession for profit has become something so normal that society is not noticing how it is gradually undermining itself with it. The growing income disparities are a problem that is now raising concerns all across the board, and has become a major topic even at the recent G7 meeting and in Davos. 1% of all Americans currently have nearly 1/5 of all the wealth in the country. And there was a time when this tendency used to be much less pronounced, particularly in the 70s. But now the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has opened up wide, and the process will only be deepening. Jones argues that this could lead society to a breaking point, where the disparity would have to be amended somehow - "either through revolution, war, or tax reform".
You can imagine the shock that the word "revolution" coming out of the mouth of a multi-millionaire has caused around the US media. And that is no surprise, considering that there have been a number of protest movements across the US in recent years, many of them directed exactly against the effects of wealth inequality - starting with Occupy Wall Street, going through the students' protests against expensive student loans, and then the protests of the workers in the services who demanded higher pay. And of course the civic protests against police brutality and racism, which were particularly intense in the socially weak regions of the country.
If anyone thinks that civic discontent and social rebellion is mostly aimless and useless, they are mistaken. In fact, deep down, every protest is a result of marginalisation and discrimination, to which certain segments of society have been subjected for many decades. Martin Luther King Jr used to say that rebellion is the language of those who have remained unheard. If we look back to history we would realise that discontent, protest and rebellion has marked the beginning of history-changing revolutions more often than not. Like the workers movements around the turn of the 19/20th century, which were rooted exactly in a civic protest against social inequality, and the terrible working conditions at the time. And let's not forget that those movements were marked by violence. Still, since violence of that magnitude has become less of an element of today's everyday routine, it is not playing such a role as it used to have a century ago - but that doesn't mean society is not threatened by another revolution, albeit possibly of a different character.
But back to Paul Tudor Jones II. Apparently, he has very clear ideas about how social disparity could be overcome. He urges the big corporations to assume more social responsibilities and engage more courageously in activities that bear benefits for society as a whole. In the meantime though, he is among the regular donors of the GOP, which is opposed to the minimum wage increase. He does acknowledge that this is a contradiction.
By the way, this concept is not new. It has been known as "philanthrocapitalism". The idea behind it is that the wealthy entrepreneurs should have the right to decide how wealth would be distributed. Through their charity donations, they are to prevent those rebellions and civic movements that could become uncontrollable, and grow into chaos. But there is a problem with this: this model of countering disparity is inherently undemocratic. Moreover, these same entrepreneurs, in their majority, are evidently unwilling to pay higher wages - and for a reason. It would undermine their bottom-line: i.e. profit.
If we are to make a comparison between various parts of the developed world, in the US, private donations for funding public services and undertakings plays a much more significant role than in Europe - especially in the sphere of culture and education. Thanks to the generosity of private entities, a number of remarkable cultural institutions have been built, like Carnegie Hall, the Chicago University, the Standford University of California, etc. All of them were founded and funded with the money of wealthy industrial entrepreneurs. But in the meantime, the wealthy are constantly increasing their wealth, while the poor are getting ever poorer, their numbers constantly increasing. Which suggests that you couldn't close the income gap through philanthropy and charitable gestures alone. All you could do is make yourself look noble and loved. But that doesn't solve anything.
In other words, as Paul Tudor Jones II argues, there is only the last option remaining, if the ever widening gap between poor and wealthy is to be narrowed to bearable levels: tax reform. The high tax burden on big wealth does have both a lot of advocates and detractors among the economists - but certainly not among the lobbyists in DC, where things are looking much more one-sided. Both Republicans and Democrats have been fighting tooth and nail against any attempts for a tax hike on the wealthiest. Even through the tax burden is nowadays several times lower than what it used to be half a century ago (it was almost 90% in the 60s). That said, today's arguments against higher taxes for the richest seem kind of absurd, if not predictably selfish and arrogant. But most importantly: short-sighted in their neglect for the long-term effects of income disparity on society.
This is a TED talk by Paul Tudor Jones II, a hedge fund manager who has earned a lot of popularity in the US, although he seldom gives interviews. Still, his arguments naturally resonate very clearly with the audience.
Basically, he is arguing that the obsession for profit has become something so normal that society is not noticing how it is gradually undermining itself with it. The growing income disparities are a problem that is now raising concerns all across the board, and has become a major topic even at the recent G7 meeting and in Davos. 1% of all Americans currently have nearly 1/5 of all the wealth in the country. And there was a time when this tendency used to be much less pronounced, particularly in the 70s. But now the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has opened up wide, and the process will only be deepening. Jones argues that this could lead society to a breaking point, where the disparity would have to be amended somehow - "either through revolution, war, or tax reform".
You can imagine the shock that the word "revolution" coming out of the mouth of a multi-millionaire has caused around the US media. And that is no surprise, considering that there have been a number of protest movements across the US in recent years, many of them directed exactly against the effects of wealth inequality - starting with Occupy Wall Street, going through the students' protests against expensive student loans, and then the protests of the workers in the services who demanded higher pay. And of course the civic protests against police brutality and racism, which were particularly intense in the socially weak regions of the country.
If anyone thinks that civic discontent and social rebellion is mostly aimless and useless, they are mistaken. In fact, deep down, every protest is a result of marginalisation and discrimination, to which certain segments of society have been subjected for many decades. Martin Luther King Jr used to say that rebellion is the language of those who have remained unheard. If we look back to history we would realise that discontent, protest and rebellion has marked the beginning of history-changing revolutions more often than not. Like the workers movements around the turn of the 19/20th century, which were rooted exactly in a civic protest against social inequality, and the terrible working conditions at the time. And let's not forget that those movements were marked by violence. Still, since violence of that magnitude has become less of an element of today's everyday routine, it is not playing such a role as it used to have a century ago - but that doesn't mean society is not threatened by another revolution, albeit possibly of a different character.
But back to Paul Tudor Jones II. Apparently, he has very clear ideas about how social disparity could be overcome. He urges the big corporations to assume more social responsibilities and engage more courageously in activities that bear benefits for society as a whole. In the meantime though, he is among the regular donors of the GOP, which is opposed to the minimum wage increase. He does acknowledge that this is a contradiction.
By the way, this concept is not new. It has been known as "philanthrocapitalism". The idea behind it is that the wealthy entrepreneurs should have the right to decide how wealth would be distributed. Through their charity donations, they are to prevent those rebellions and civic movements that could become uncontrollable, and grow into chaos. But there is a problem with this: this model of countering disparity is inherently undemocratic. Moreover, these same entrepreneurs, in their majority, are evidently unwilling to pay higher wages - and for a reason. It would undermine their bottom-line: i.e. profit.
If we are to make a comparison between various parts of the developed world, in the US, private donations for funding public services and undertakings plays a much more significant role than in Europe - especially in the sphere of culture and education. Thanks to the generosity of private entities, a number of remarkable cultural institutions have been built, like Carnegie Hall, the Chicago University, the Standford University of California, etc. All of them were founded and funded with the money of wealthy industrial entrepreneurs. But in the meantime, the wealthy are constantly increasing their wealth, while the poor are getting ever poorer, their numbers constantly increasing. Which suggests that you couldn't close the income gap through philanthropy and charitable gestures alone. All you could do is make yourself look noble and loved. But that doesn't solve anything.
In other words, as Paul Tudor Jones II argues, there is only the last option remaining, if the ever widening gap between poor and wealthy is to be narrowed to bearable levels: tax reform. The high tax burden on big wealth does have both a lot of advocates and detractors among the economists - but certainly not among the lobbyists in DC, where things are looking much more one-sided. Both Republicans and Democrats have been fighting tooth and nail against any attempts for a tax hike on the wealthiest. Even through the tax burden is nowadays several times lower than what it used to be half a century ago (it was almost 90% in the 60s). That said, today's arguments against higher taxes for the richest seem kind of absurd, if not predictably selfish and arrogant. But most importantly: short-sighted in their neglect for the long-term effects of income disparity on society.
(no subject)
Date: 10/6/15 14:15 (UTC)And maybe it's just as threatened with extinction a species.
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/15 04:13 (UTC)I think we need to look not to the past for answers, but to evaluate how we got here and why things are the way they are currently. See how the policies of Reagan and Clinton and the Bushes and Obama have impacted things along the way. How outsourced jobs and stagnant wages and student loan debt and tax loopholes have made an impact. Tax reform? That's a simple enough concept for a TED talk, but I think the answer is more complex than that.
(no subject)
Date: 11/6/15 04:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/6/15 22:03 (UTC)As much as I'd like to eat the rich, they'll just get rich again. We need to stop the cycle of poverty, just not let inequality balloon enough so that all we think about is the 1%.